Should State Government be Able to Ban Smoking?

Published on February 17, 2009 By JillUser In Politics

A conversation I had with a friend on Facebook inspired me to write about this subject. He had joined a movement urging the state of Michigan to ban smoking in businesses including bars and restaurants. I for one would be ecstatic if everyone stopped smoking altogether but I don't think the government should have that power over businesses.

First of all, smoking is legal. Why should the government be able to tell a business owner that they can't have something legal occurring in their establishment? I told my friend this is a very slippery slope. He agreed but said that it is one we need to approach. So what's next? Will businesses that serve alcohol be required to obtain a person's car keys or give proof of an alternative mode of transportation before serving them alcohol?

This is already happening in some states but I think this is certainly not the time for Michigan to give it a whirl. Our economy is about the worst out there. If bars were no longer able to allow their patrons to smoke, I suspect a whole lot more people would be going to Canada, Ohio or elsewhere out of state for their business or they'll just stay at home and drink and smoke. The other outcome would be the bars would ignore the new restriction, get hit with a fine and end up out of business.

I say if smoking is legal it should be up to the business owner as to whether or not to allow it. If they want to exclude the smokers, that's their right but if they need the smokers or even want them, why shouldn't they if it is a legal activity? Anyone who has a problem with smoke need not visit the establishment.

I'll be interested to hear others opinions on the subject.

Comments (Page 19)

271

aeortar

on Mar 14, 2009

I challenge anyone like the asshat aeorter to provide PROOF that smoking or second smoke causes any illness and is a major public health hazard. Not opinion or statistical bullshit

Hilarious, someone still in denial about the negative effects of smoking. Throwing insults around everywhere you can just shows up the lack of substance to your argument even more. Even the tobacco companies aren't trying to argue that smoking isn't harmful anymore Mason, so it's a pretty lonely road you're treading.

Fortunately my work in finding something to back up the argument that yes, passive smoking is harmful, doesn't take much work. Just a simple google or wiki search will bring up plenty of information

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking - a bunch of references+studies just in that one link.

Still, for someone who dismisses evidence as "statistical bullshit" (no doubt it's just a coincidence that plenty of people who smoke or are exposed to second hand smoke happen to get lung cancer...), I can tell there'll be no convincing you of even the most blindingly obvious things. Still, I was hoping I'd get to see at least one person try to deny the harm caused by smoking on this thread though - only on JU!

I know for a faxt

Yes, you really do!

272

taltamir

on Mar 15, 2009

Ever heard of erring on the side of caution?

There is proof positive that smoking kills. The question on weather the amount of toxins you get from second hand smoke is "significant" or not is one that should be erred on the side of caution. It is like saying "we know cynide is deadly, but lets put a SMALL amount of it in peoples drinks".

Besides which there are a bunch of studies that do claim to show that it is dangerous. But then again, I know people who have a very dismissive attitude towards science.

273

EL-DUDERINO

on Mar 16, 2009

This merely proves a correlation NOT a causal relationship which is what Mason was asking for.

Now does that mean that the correlation should be ignored? No. But that doesn't mean that the government should ban smoking in privately owned businesses. People have the right to do harmful things, and as long as there is informed consent that the potentially harmful activity is going on then that should be enough.

274

taltamir

on Mar 17, 2009

harmful things TO THEMSELVES, not to OTHERS. there is a clear distinction there.

And technically, people SHOULD be allowed to do harmful things to themselves but are often not.

275

watertown1978

on Mar 17, 2009

taltamir

reply 24

harmful things TO THEMSELVES, not to OTHERS. there is a clear distinction there.

And technically, people SHOULD be allowed to do harmful things to themselves but are often not.

Yeah and people have the right to decide if they go to a place that has smoking allowed. See it goes both ways here. No one is forcing a non smoker to go into that bar.

276

JillUser

on Mar 17, 2009

There is proof positive that smoking kills.

So does riding a bike, motorcycle, driving a car, swimming, ..... people don't have to do those things to live yet they have the right to take those chances. I know poeple who have died from all of those things. I don't know anyone who has died from being exposed to smoke in a public place and nowhere else.

277

JillUser

on Mar 17, 2009

Yeah and people have the right to decide if they go to a place that has smoking allowed. See it goes both ways here. No one is forcing a non smoker to go into that bar.

Exactly!

278

MasonM

on Apr 26, 2009

aeortar

reply 21

I challenge anyone like the asshat aeorter to provide PROOF that smoking or second smoke causes any illness and is a major public health hazard. Not opinion or statistical bullshit
Hilarious, someone still in denial about the negative effects of smoking. Throwing insults around everywhere you can just shows up the lack of substance to your argument even more. Even the tobacco companies aren't trying to argue that smoking isn't harmful anymore Mason, so it's a pretty lonely road you're treading.

Fortunately my work in finding something to back up the argument that yes, passive smoking is harmful, doesn't take much work. Just a simple google or wiki search will bring up plenty of information

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking - a bunch of references+studies just in that one link.

Still, for someone who dismisses evidence as "statistical bullshit" (no doubt it's just a coincidence that plenty of people who smoke or are exposed to second hand smoke happen to get lung cancer...), I can tell there'll be no convincing you of even the most blindingly obvious things. Still, I was hoping I'd get to see at least one person try to deny the harm caused by smoking on this thread though - only on JU!

I know for a faxt
Yes, you really do!

You are truly an idiot. Not a single study listed in the link you posted provides a CASUAL LINK between between smoking and any illness, just, as I challenged, opinions and manipulated statistics, and yet you still claim them as PROOF. You really should take a few English and logic courses.

99% of everyone who ever got cancer ate a pickle at some point in their life so therefore pickles must cause cancer.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!